Spoke with Mike Ioane whose hearing was yesterday. The new judge upheld the restrictions of the previous judge it seems.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ioane dictated his analysis of the Fourth Amendment:

Regarding the federal court’s lack of a proper arrest warrant in IRS cases involving indictments. . .the question that repeatedly comes up is whether the IRS is required to have an Oath or Affirmation when executing an arrest warrant. We know that if there is an indictment, that is a conclusive finding of probable cause; however, does that qualify for a fourth amendment Oath or Affirmation as contemplated by the founding fathers, in order to be secure? We do not think so.

The prosecution and IRS have devised a scheme to circumvent the taxpayer’s due process: A) by failing to file a complaint, which the Grand Jury could make a determination or conclusive finding of probable cause from, B) by denying taxpayers a preliminary hearing, C) by allowing arrest warrants to be executed absent an Oath or Affirmation, in support of probable cause, D) by circumventing proper procedures in order to deny taxpayers due process to confront their accusers.

Usually, no one from the Department of Justice, IRS or otherwise are ever willing to take responsibility for the allegations made in the indictments; which is clearly contrary to what was contemplated in the fourth amendment when it said the people should be secure.

Rarely, if ever, does anyone have first-hand knowledge, who claims a taxpayer did the allegations mentioned in the indictment, so why must the taxpayer sue to be secure?

The process that takes place guarantees immunity to all the actors and jail for the taxpayer or huge fines. In order to be secure, the taxpayer must have someone that they can sue in order to be secure. None of us can be secure, as contemplated by the fourth amendment, if someone is not willing to stand up and take responsibility.

If the probable cause finding by the Grand Jury is sufficient to proceed to execute a warrant, why bother with an arrest warrant? In other words, why waste the time obtaining an arrest warrant if the indictment is sufficient? (Just arrest the person with the indictment in your hand.) Does the clerk or Judge who issues the arrest warrant find probable cause from the conclusive probable cause finding of the Grand Jury and then issue the warrant, or was it the other way around? Is finding of probable cause by a clerk or Judge and the conclusive finding of probable cause by the Grand Jury equal or equivalent to an Oath? If so, why didn’t the framers of the constitution mention in the fourth amendment that an indictment is an alternative to the fourth amendment right to be secure? We believe it is not sufficient to execute an arrest warrant without an Oath or Affirmation.

The question we have to ask is, is a document claiming to be a warrant in fact a warrant by definition without an Oath or Affirmation? If the Grand Jury is the Oath where is the Jurat holding the Jurors liable to the facts that they claim first-hand knowledge to?

Is it true that a finding of probable cause is a judicial discretionary act, which carries judicial immunity; but executing a warrant or summons is a ministerial act in which the executing officer is liable along with the judicial officer who allows the execution?

The Ninth Circuit Court of appeals appears to agree that an Oath or Affirmation are required in order to execute an arrest warrant, and so we believe that an indictment is simply not satisfactory without the Oath and Affirmation.

About

Friends of Michael S. Ioane is a blog for postings from various authors. We are dedicated to news and information regarding how the Justice Department aids and abets the IRS in criminal activities with special emphasis on the Eastern District Court of California.
Saying Things other People Think!